To establish that a tying arrangement constitutes a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, an antitrust plaintiff must prove that the defendant has “appreciable economic power” in the tying product market. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 462 (1992). The question presented in this case is whether the courts should recognize a special exception for patented products, in the form of a rebuttable presumption of market power.

(I)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Interest of the United States

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

Statement

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

1

Summary of argument Argument:

5

Courts should not presume that a patent confers

the market power necessary to establish that tying

is unlawful per se

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

7

A. Section 1 does not impose a per se prohibi- tion on tying arrangements in the absence of market power in the tying product market

8

B. Possession of a patent on the tying product

does not establish market power

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

9

C. This Court’s decisions do not require the creation or preservation of a presumption

that patents confer market power

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

18

D. A presumption that patents confer market power would conflict with the procompetitive